The RFL are not pro active they don't see potential changes for the good of the game and act on them they stick with what they know until something truly messes up and then they become reactive. The inclusion of Crusaders into super league can't be considered pro active simply moronic there's a certain level of understanding and knowledge required to apply such a mentality and sadly our governing body is inept at this. We will only see a change when Leeds start winning it from 8th and the RFL consider the current play off system doesn't reward good rugby for 27 rounds merely the final 3/4 games.

It's quite simple really. The RFL are tied now until the end of the current tv contract (end of 2015). Sky have signed for 70 matches a year (of which 7 are magic games and 9 are play offs). So axing either or both would have to be done with Sky agreeing to pick up the missing 16 matches somewhere else, or by re-negotiating the tv deal, probably so it ends up cheaper for Sky.

None of those options are likely to happen, so the current will be around for at least 3 more years.

Nothing will change until the next 'licencing review'

What sort of a game we will have left after 3 more years of the same structure is worrying for me as a fan, I find it hard to believe that those actually involved in the business are ok with it rolling along on autopilot. Isn't Maurice Watkins doing a review - wouldn't that have something to say on the matter?

A review is a good way of taking peoples concerns and kicking them nicely into touch.

I guess it depends on what the RFL tell him to put in it...

If it was P&R Crusaders would have been in SL for the first season as they were the best or 2nd best team in the Championship that season.

probably been mentioned before , but i would like to see a top 5 play off system that works as follows

league winners get rewarded straight into grand final
2 v 5
3 v 4
winners of them games play with highest finishing team at home for right to play in grand final

simples!

So the team that finishes top gets two weeks off whereas the other finalist will have played each week.
I wonder which team would be more game ready?

point taken about being "game ready" , but i would rather see a team rewarded with a grand final for winning the league rather than the current format of having to win 3 games still to win it,

it could work the other way where teams would be "fatigued" or pick up injuries in the play offs therefore giving advantage to the team winning the league.

I too don`t think it will change for next year.
But still maintain if you can live without a showpiece one off grand final I would go for a top 3 triangular tournamant.
1st v 3rd
2nd v 3rd
1st v 2nd

Bonus points for tries scored highest placed at the end become Champions.
Rewards team finishing 1st with 2 home games.
Leeds will have to finish 3rd this time and still win 2 away games

I liked the idea mentioned on the radio last night for a top three play off.
Top team goes straight to the GF with teams two and three playing for the other final place.
A play off system which is short, sharp and decisive.

Which is exactly why it wont happen.

Sky want it to be akin to a soap opera in length and as they call the shots, the RFL will dance to a top 8 tune until Sky tell them otherwise.

The only way to comprimise between not rewarding mediocrity, keeping Sky happy and moving to a more sensible system is to implement a top 7.

1 through to week 2
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

1 v lowest placed wk 1 winner
Remaining two wk 1 winners

Final

Reduces playoffs from 4 to 3 weeks.
Gives a definite advantage for every place higher you finish.
No repeat fixtures or 2nd chances.

It's worth pointing out that those of us who support top 5 clubs like the idea of a top 5 (which is the best format for me, nothing wrong with the way we used to do it) breathing life into 27 weekly rounds. The trouble is that it only does that for about 6 or maybe 7 teams. If you're lucky and get a competitive season. The other teams will have the life sucked from a varying number of their weekly rounds.

You could fix a lot of that by bringing back promotion and relegation, but you need enough decent and fully professional teams in the 2nd tier to make that work. That, IMO, is where the efforts and resources of the RFL need to be focused.

People talk about the Watkins review, but why would you expect all recommendations he makes to be implemented immediately? When will that be published?

A more pertinent question: why are people so sure the game is being damaged by the current system? "I fear for the future of the game" we hear you cry. Why? Is there evidence of serious declines in attendance across the league? Is sponsor and TV revenue dropping through the floor? I'd expect a small dip post-2008 - most entertainment industries have suffered that, but I can't actually see that the numbers suggest there's a problem to fix.

For sporting reasons I'd like the game to build a strong enough base to support P&R with a 5 team play-off format, but I'm not convinced we have that base yet. There are certainly pros as well as cons to the way things are being done, and you can't (or at least you probably shouldn't) start chucking terms like "short-sighted" and "reactive" around just because the direction followed is different to the one you'd like to see.

If anything is reactive rather than proactive, it's the sudden intensification of the clamour (which, yes, I know existed before) to change the system immediately just because Leeds have won from 5th a couple of times.